Top

Published in:

01-01-2012 | Review Article

Traditional native tissue versus mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature

Authors: E. J. Stanford, A. Cassidenti, M. D. Moen

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 1/2012

Abstract

The objective of this paper was to review the literature on pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and compare the success of traditional/native tissue versus mesh-augmented repairs. A comprehensive literature review was performed using PubMed and bibliography searches to compare the anatomic success rates of native tissue (NT) and mesh-augmented (MA) prolapse repairs and to analyze outcome measures used to report success rates. Articles were included if anatomic outcomes were stated for the specific compartment of interest and included both prospective and retrospective studies. The published success rates for NT repairs versus MA repairs by anterior, posterior, or apical compartments are reported. When continence is used as the primary outcome measure, anterior NT has a success rate of 54%. Anterior NT success is as low as 30% in some studies, but generally is 88–97% when prolapse is the primary outcome particularly if apical support is included. This compares to the 87–96% success reported for anterior MA. Posterior NT success is 54–81%, which is lower than the 92–97% reported for posterior MA when prolapse is the outcome measure. The success rates for apical NT are 97–98% for uterosacral ligament suspension and 96% for sacrospinous ligament suspension, which compare favorably to sacrocolpopexy (91–100%). There are some differences in the complications reported for NT and MA. The rate of complications is approximately 8% for NT and is reported at 0–19% for MA. The higher rate for MA is largely due to mesh erosion/exposure. When similar outcome measures are compared, the published anatomic success rates of POP of anterior and apical compartmental surgery are similar for NT and MA repairs. There may be a higher rate of complications noted for mesh implantation. POP surgery is complex, and both NT and MA techniques require skills to perform proper compartmental reconstruction. An understanding of the published literature and knowledge of individual surgeon factors are important in deciding which surgical approach to use and how to best counsel patients during informed consent.

Swift S, Woodman P, O’Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D et al (2005) Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:795–806PubMedCrossRef

Walker JA, Gunasekera P (2011) Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in developing countries: review of prevalence and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J 22:127–135PubMedCrossRef

Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 8:501–506CrossRef

Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R (2003) Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(5):1261–1267PubMedCrossRef

Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM et al (2008) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: a short version Cochrane review. Neurourol Urodyn 27(1):3–12PubMedCrossRef

Milani R, Salvatore S, Soligo M et al (2005) Functional and anatomical outcome of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse repair with prolene mesh. BJOG 112(1):107–111PubMedCrossRef

Moore J, Armstrong JT, Wills SH (1955) The use of tantalum mesh in cystocele with critical report of ten cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 69:1127–1135PubMed

Friedman EA, Meltzer RM (1970) Collagen mesh prosthesis for repair of endopelvic fascial defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 106:430–433PubMed

Julian TM (1996) The efficacy of Marlex mesh in the repair of severe recurrent vaginal prolapse of the anterior midvaginal wall. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:1472–1475PubMedCrossRef

10.

Ulmsten U, Petros P (1995) Intravaginal slingplasty (IVS): an ambulatory surgical procedure for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Scand J Urol Nephrol 29(1):75–82PubMedCrossRef

11.

de Tayrac R, Gervaise A, Chauveaud A, Fernandez H (2005) Tension-free polypropylene mesh for vaginal repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. J Reprod Med 50(2):75–80PubMed

12.

Dwyer PL, O’Reilly BA (2004) Transvaginal repair of anterior and posterior compartment prolapse with Atrium polypropylene mesh. BJOG 111(8):831–836PubMedCrossRef

13.

Stanford EJ, Mattox TF, Pugh CJ (2011) Outcomes and complications of transvaginal and abdominal custom-shaped light-weight polypropylene mesh used in repair of pelvic organ prolapse. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(1):64–67PubMedCrossRef

14.

Milani AL, Hinoul P, Gauld JM et al (2011) Trocar-guided mesh repair of vaginal prolapse using partially absorbable mesh: 1-year outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:74.e1-8PubMedCrossRef

15.

Gauruder-Burmester A, Koutouzidou P, Rohne J et al (2007) Follow-up after polypropylene mesh repair of anterior and posterior compartments in patients with recurrent prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(9):1059–1064PubMedCrossRef

16.

Rane A, Kannan K, Barry C et al (2008) Prospective study of the Perigee system for the management of cystocoeles—medium-term follow up. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 48(4):427–432PubMedCrossRef

17.

Balakrishnan S, Lim YN, Barry C et al (2008) Prospective evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the Apogee system for treatment of vault prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol 28(6):618–620PubMedCrossRef

18.

Fatton B, Amblard J, Debodinance P et al (2007) Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift technique)—a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(7):743–752PubMedCrossRef

19.

Van Raalte HM, Lucente VR, Molden SM et al (2008) One-year anatomic and quality-of-life outcomes after the Prolift procedure for treatment of posthysterectomy prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(6):694.e1-6PubMed

20.

Hinoul P, Ombelet WU, Burger MP, Roovers JP (2008) A prospective study to evaluate the anatomic and functional outcome of a transobturator mesh kit (prolift anterior) for symptomatic cystocele repair. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(5):615–620PubMedCrossRef

21.

Culligan PJ, Littman PM, Salamon CG, Priestley JL, Shariati A (2010) Evaluation of a transvaginal mesh delivery system for the correction of pelvic organ prolapse: subjective and objective findings at least 1 year after surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:506.e1-6PubMedCrossRef

22.

Mattox TF, Moore S, Stanford EJ, Mills BB (2006) Posterior vaginal sling experience in elderly patients yields poor results. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194(5):1462–1466PubMedCrossRef

23.

Mattox TF, Stanford EJ, Varner E (2004) Infected abdominal sacrocolpopexies: diagnosis and treatment. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 15(5):319–323PubMed

24.

Stanford EJ, Paraiso MF (2008) A comprehensive review of suburethral sling procedure complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(2):132–145PubMedCrossRef

25.

Altman D, Falconer C (2007) Perioperative morbidity using transvaginal mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Obstet Gynecol 109(2 Pt 1):303–308PubMedCrossRef

26.

Niemenen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T et al (2010) Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3-year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(3):235.e1-8

27.

DeLancey JO (1999) Structural anatomy of the posterior pelvic compartment as it relates to rectocele. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180(4):815–823PubMedCrossRef

28.

Otcenasek M, Baca V, Krofta L, Feyereisl J (2008) Endopelvic fascia in women: shape and relation to parietal pelvic structures. Obstet Gynecol 111(3):622–630PubMedCrossRef

29.

Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JO (2007) Functional anatomy of the female pelvic floor. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1101:266–296PubMedCrossRef

30.

Huebner M, Margulies RU, DeLancey JO (2008) Pelvic architectural distortion is associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(6):863–867PubMedCrossRef

31.

Chen L, Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JO (2009) A 3D finite element model of anterior vaginal wall support to evaluate mechanisms underlying cystocele formation. J Biomech 42(10):1371–1377PubMedCrossRef

32.

Heilbrun ME, Nygaard IE, Lockhart ME et al (2010) Correlation between levator ani muscle injuries on magnetic resonance imaging and fecal incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and urinary incontinence in primiparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202(5):488.e1-6PubMedCrossRef

33.

Chen L, Ashton-Miller JA, Hsu Y, DeLancey JO (2006) Interaction among apical support, levator ani impairment, and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 108(2):324–332PubMedCrossRef

34.

Weber AM, Walters MD (1997) Anterior vaginal prolapse: review of anatomy and techniques of surgical repair. Obstet Gynecol 89(2):311–318PubMedCrossRef

35.

Farrell SA, Dempsey T, Geldenhuys L (2001) Histologic examination of “fascia” used in colporrhaphy. Obstet Gynecol 98(5 Pt 1):794–798PubMedCrossRef

36.

Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I et al (2009) Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114(3):600–609PubMedCrossRef

37.

Chmielewski L, Walter MD, Weber AM, Barber MD (2011) Reanalysis of a randomized trial of 3 techniques of anterior colporrhaphy using clinically relevant definitions of success. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205(1):69.e1–69.e8

38.

Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E (1996) Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:1418–1422PubMedCrossRef

39.

Roovers JPWR, van der Vaart CH, van der Bom JG, van Leeuwen JHS, Scholten PC, Heintz APM (2004) A randomized controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 111:50–56CrossRef

40.

Beck RP, McCormick S, Nordstrom L (1991) A 25-year experience with 519 anterior colporrhaphy procedures. Obstet Gynecol 78(6):1011–1018PubMed

41.

Ralph G, Tamussino K, Michelitsch L (1993) Surgical therapy of recurrent stress incontinence. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 53(4):265–269PubMedCrossRef

42.

Tamussino K, Zivkovic F, Pieber D, Ralph G (1995) 5-years results of incontinence operations. Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch 35(3):175–176PubMedCrossRef

43.

Bergman A, Elia G (1995) Three surgical procedures for genuine stress incontinence: five-year follow-up of a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 173(1):66–71PubMedCrossRef

44.

Liapis A, Pyrgiotis E, Kontoravdis A et al (1996) Genuine stress incontinence: prospective randomized comparison of two operative methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 64(1):69–72PubMedCrossRef

45.

Guner H, Ahmed S, Nas T, Yildirim M (1996) Surgical treatment alternatives in stress incontinence. Int J Gynecol Obstet 52(3):255–258CrossRef

46.

Kammerer-Doak DN, Dorin MH, Rogers RG, Cousin MO (1999) A randomized trial of Burch retropubic urethropexy and anterior colporrhaphy for stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 93(1):75–78PubMedCrossRef

47.

Luna MT, Hirakawa T, Kamura T et al (1999) Comparison of the anterior colporrhaphy procedure and the Marshall–Marchetti–Krantz operation in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence among women. J Obstet Gynecol Res 25(4):255–260CrossRef

48.

Tamussino KF, Zivkovic R, Peiber D et al (1999) Five-year results after anti-incontinence operations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181(6):1347–1352PubMedCrossRef

49.

Colombo M, Vitobello D, Proietti F, Milani R (2000) Randomized comparison of Burch colposuspension versus anterior colporrhaphy in women with stress urinary incontinence and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. BJOG 107(4):544–551PubMedCrossRef

50.

Cosiski Marana HR, Moreira de Andrade J, Matheus de Sala M et al (1996) Evaluation of long-term results of surgical correction of stress urinary incontinence. Gynecol Obstet Invest 41(3):214–219PubMedCrossRef

51.

Gandhi S, Goldberg RP, Kwon C et al (2005) A prospective randomized trial using solvent dehydrated fascia lata for the prevention of recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(5):1649–1654PubMedCrossRef

52.

Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111(4):891–898PubMedCrossRef

53.

Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Heiskanen E et al (2008) Symptom resolution and sexual function after anterior vaginal wall repair with or without polyprolprolene mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(12):1611–1616PubMedCrossRef

54.

Altman D, Väyrynen T, Ellstöm Engh M, Axelsen S, Falconer C, for the Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364:1826–1836PubMedCrossRef

55.

Kohli N, Sze EH, Roat TW, Karram MM (1996) Incidence of recurrent cystocele after anterior colporrhaphy with and without concomitant transvaginal needle suspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(6):1476–1480PubMedCrossRef

56.

Smilen SW, Saini J, Wallach SJ, Proges RF (1998) The risk of cystocele after sacrospinous ligament fixation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179(6 Pt 1):1465–1471PubMedCrossRef

57.

Hsu Y, Lewicky-Gaupp C, DeLancey JO (2008) Posterior compartment anatomy as seen in magnetic resonance imaging and 3-dimensional reconstruction from asymptomatic nulliparas. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(6):651.e1-7PubMedCrossRef

58.

Cundiff GW, Fenner D (2004) Evaluation and treatment of women with rectocele: focus on associated defecatory and sexual dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol 104(6):1403–1421PubMedCrossRef

59.

Kleeman SD, Karram M (2008) Posterior pelvic floor prolapse and a review of the anatomy, preoperative testing and surgical management. Minerva Ginecol 60(2):165–182PubMed

60.

Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir TW, Walters MD (2006) Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195(6):1762–1771PubMedCrossRef

61.

Abramov Y, Gandhi S, Goldberg RP, Botros SM, Kwon C, Sand PK (2005) Site-specific rectocele repair compared with standard posterior colporrhaphy. Obstet Gynecol 105(2):314–318PubMedCrossRef

62.

Cundiff GW, Weidner AC, Visco AG et al (1998) An anatomic and functional assessment of the discrete defect rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179(6 Pt 1):1451–1456PubMedCrossRef

63.

Altman D, Zetterström J, Mellgren A et al (2006) A three-year prospective assessment of rectocele repair using porcine xenograft. Obstet Gynecol 107(1):59–65PubMedCrossRef

64.

Sand PK, Koduri S, Lobel RW et al (2001) Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184(7):1357–1362PubMedCrossRef

65.

de Tayrac R, Picone O, Chauveaud-Lambling A, Fernandez H (2006) A 2-year anatomical and functional assessment of transvaginal rectocele repair using a polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(2):100–105PubMedCrossRef

66.

Montella JM, Morrill MY (2005) Effectiveness of the McCall culdeplasty in maintaining support after vaginal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16(3):226–229PubMedCrossRef

67.

Silva WA, Pauls RN, Segal JL et al (2006) Uterosacral ligament vault suspension: five-year outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 108(2):255–263PubMedCrossRef

68.

Margulies RU, Rogers MAM, Morgan DM (2010) Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202(2):124–134PubMedCrossRef

69.

Cespedes RD (2000) Anterior approach bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation for vaginal vault prolapse. Urology 56(6 Suppl 1):70–75PubMedCrossRef

70.

Penalver M, Mekki Y, Lafferty H et al (1998) Should sacrospinous ligament fixation for the management of pelvic support defects be part of a residency program procedure? The University of Miami experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178(2):326–329PubMedCrossRef

71.

Nygaard IN, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly AM, Cundiff G, Weber A, Zyczynski H (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104:805–823PubMedCrossRef

72.

Quiroz LH, Gutman RE, Shippey S et al (2008) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: anatomic outcomes and complications with Pelvicol, autologous and synthetic graft materials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(5):557.e1-5PubMedCrossRef

73.

Claerhout F, DeRidder D, Roovers JP (2009) Medium-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexies beyond the learning curve. Eur Urol 55(6):1459–1467PubMedCrossRef

74.

Deprest J, DeRidder D, Roovers JP et al (2009) Medium-term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with xenografts compared to synthetic grafts. J Urol 182(5):2362–2368PubMedCrossRef

75.

Tate SB, Blackwell L, Lorenz DJ et al (2011) Randomized trial of fascia lata and polypropylene mesh for abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 5-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 22:137–143CrossRef

76.

Elser DM, Moen MD, Stanford EJ (2010) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy and urinary incontinence: surgical planning based on urodynamics. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202(4):375.e1-5PubMedCrossRef

77.

Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J, Vervest HA, Vierhout ME (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117(2 Pt 1):242–250PubMedCrossRef

78.

Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER et al (2010) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 116(2 Part 1):293–303PubMedCrossRef

79.

Roman H, Narpeau L, Hulsey TC (2008) Surgeons’experience and interaction effect in randomized controlled trials regarding new surgical procedures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:108.e1–108.e6CrossRef

80.

Walters MD (2003) The use and misuse of prosthetic materials in reconstructive pelvic surgery: does the evidence support our surgical practice? Int Urogynecol J 14:365–366CrossRef

81.

Davila GW, Drutz H, Deprest J (2006) Clincal implications of the biology of grafts: conclusions of the 2005 IUGA grafts roundtable. Int Urogynecol J 17:S51–S55CrossRef

82.

Wall LL, Brown D (2010) The perils of commercially driven surgical innovation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202:30.e1-4PubMedCrossRef

83.

Mucowski SJ, Jurnalov C, Phelps JY (2010) Use of vaginal mesh in the face of recent FDA warnings and litigation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:103.e1-4PubMedCrossRef

Title: Traditional native tissue versus mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature
Authors: E. J. Stanford
A. Cassidenti
M. D. Moen
Publication date: 01-01-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1584-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Traditional native tissue versus mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Doppler ureteric jet in urogenital prolapse

The clinical characteristics of uterine tumor-related bladder outlet obstruction

Measurement of the 3D geometry of the fascial arches in women with a unilateral levator defect and “architectural distortion”

Incidence and risk factors for reoperation of surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse

The mesh debate

Management of recurrent vault prolapse